Oakland, CA February 2008: Later this year, the Bush administration is set to have discussions with lawmakers on whether the US import tariff (US $0.54 per gallon) on ethanol should be allowed to expire or not. Designed to protect US corn-based ethanol makers from cheaper imports, elimination of this import tariff is expected to have wide implications for ethanol exporting countries, especially Brazil that accounts for more than 70% of imports (2006 figures).

While Brazil's leadership on biofuels - particularly sugarcane-based ethanol - has been held as a global model for sustainable biomass production, a new report from the Oakland Institute and Terra de Direitos, Food & Energy Sovereignty Now: Brazilian Grassroots Position on Agroenergy, describes the opposition that biofuels face from the Brazilian social movements and civil society, as formulated at the First National Agroenergy Conference, held in Curitiba, Brazil in October, 2007. The report also exposes how the 'ethanol factor,' within the current drive for 'energy security' in the US, is becoming the integrating force in the region that is shaping a new geopolitical configuration in Latin America.

"Today what makes Brazil distinct from any other country is that ethanol/biofuels, purported to be a "clean" energy, have become a bargaining tool and are the central focus for Brazil's economic and political aspirations internationally, while they exacerbate social and environmental problems domestically," said Camila Moreno, researcher at Terra de Direitos and lead author of the report. "Biofuels and the agroenergy strategy depends on massive expansion of industrial monocultures and biotechnology (GMOs) under the corporate-controlled industrial agricultural system. A drive through the Brazilian countryside shows how the expansion of biofuels is turning millions of hectares of valuable natural ecosystems, including the Cerrado (grasslands) and the Amazon, into one major monoculture. This expansion of monocultures under corporate-controlled industrial agricultural system today determines access and control over common natural resources (land, water, forests, biodiversity, oil, gas) and is at the root of nearly all socio-environmental conflicts in Brazil, as throughout the rest of Latin America," she continued.

Nonetheless, even given the heightened conflict that expanded biofuel production is sure to spark, Brazilian foreign policy makers are working hard to grade ethanol as a key “eco-friendly" environmental good under the WTO, thus contributing to ‘making trade work for the environment' – a sensitive but increasingly important task amid rising concerns over global warming. The report makes the case that biofuels are in fact, a Trojan Horse to promote free trade agreements.

"More and more studies demonstrate that biofuels make global warming worse, since a range of biofuel crops release far more carbon dioxide into the air than they absorb. In spite of the damning evidence, international entities such as the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) are promoting biofuels initiatives using a "development" framework. Rich nations are adopting mandatory blend targets to increase the use of biofuels while they lack the agricultural land and production capacity necessary to achieve these targets. These mandatory targets depend on production in southern countries, siphoning off valuable resources like land and water," said Anuradha Mittal, executive director of the Oakland Institute and coauthor of the report.

Food & Energy Sovereignty Now: Brazilian Grassroots Position on Agroenergy challenges the corporate strategy which has come to determine the official discourse on climate change and how to tackle it. The report contends that instead of taking measures to fight the root causes of climate change, biofuels are helping create new political arrangements aimed at maximizing corporate profits and perpetuating global power imbalance. This crucible moment of "greening" corporations, or "de-carbonizing" the economy to "save the planet" only promotes free trade, while disguised as a commitment to tackle global warming and enforced as an "energy security" strategy. The capacity to mix fossil fuels and agrofuels will prevent a rapid phase-out of oil-based infrastructure and economy, further postponing the required structural changes in the way of life (and patterns of consumption) in the developed world and a structural transition to a post-oil society.

The ecological crisis brought on by the industrial society and its energy demands cries for a paradigm shift in our production and consumption patterns and in the way we depend on nature to provide our basic needs and ensure daily survival. Social movements in the South are building the concept of Energy Sovereignty as an essential component, along with Food Sovereignty, to attain social and environmental justice – "an expression of peoples' right to self-determination, Food and Energy Sovereignty stem from the right to democratic access and effective control over common natural resources, thereby guaranteeing communities and nations the ability to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and to determine their political status," the report proposes.

Organic farming provides economic advantages a. Organic food attracts price premiums of up to 30% b. In developed countries, well managed organic farms produce crop yields which almost match those of conventional yields.

c. In under developed countries organic crop yields produce yields 2-3 times higher than conventional crops.

d. Organic farming is a cheaper method of food production because it does not use expensive chemical inputs (synthetic fertilisers and pesticides) and because it reduces the use of medicines in animal husbandry.

e. Organic farming may produce profits for farmers from ‘carbon credit’ trading systems being developed around the world f. Organic agriculture can help feed the hungry by reducing the need to import subsidised food, and could produce a diverse range of certified organic surpluses to be exported at premium profit. Because organic methods exclude the use chemical inputs, poor farmers have less capital outlay and dependency on multinational seed and chemical companies is reduced.

Planet Diversity Congress

Coming together for a diverse future

Reasons for Acting

Loss of biodiversity and climate change caused by man are arguably the most formidable ecological threats humankind has ever faced. The effects of these two, closely interdependent phenomena may be encountered as natural catastrophes threatening our civilisation. However, they are themselves the effects of a presently dominant concept of civilisation. Can these truly global challenges be met by the same set of technological and political principles and means that actually led us to this critical point of human as well as natural history? Food and agriculture lie at the very heart of the problem. Further acceleration of present trends to industrialise, homogenize and globalise industrial food production are certainly not the solution but rather a recipe for disaster.

We will organise a global festival and congress of Diversity in May 2008, during the Meeting of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity and their Protocol on Biosafety in Bonn, Germany. In holding the event parallel to these significant international meetings, we also aim to impact and lobby the government negotiations, especially those on liability and redress for damage caused by GMOs. "Planet Diversity" will celebrate natural and agricultural biodiversity, the cultural diversity of food and agriculture. Its primary goal is to discuss how farmers, consumers, food producers and their communities can cooperate to enrich and defend this diversity.

We see a global movement from different directions coming together for the common cause of defending diversity against destructive and threatening tendencies in agricultural production, land use and food production. The initiative for this “World Summit” sprang from the 3rd European Conference of GMO-Free Regions, Biodiversity and Rural Development in April of 2007. Its goal is to offer an opportunity for enhanced collaboration and to deliver a joint message to the representatives of governments meeting in Bonn to discuss biodiversity and biosafety.

Diversity of Movements

Global control and standardisation of agricultural products and seed stand in direct contradiction to the concept of local and regional diversity in agriculture and agricultural research. This dichotomy is manifest in diverse movements. An important common denominator remains the rejection of genetically-modified crops and livestock in agriculture and food stuffs. This is based on a multi-faceted and diverse movement of local and global debates on food and its production.

Beginning in Europe - but increasingly worldwide - regions, communities and farmers’ alliances have declared their soil to be GMO-free regions. They demand self-determination in rural development and emphasize local diversity and their agricultural traditions and heritage foods.

The majority of consumers throughout the entire world reject genetically-modified foods and want to decide for themselves what they will eat. Many of them demand sustainable and unaltered products from their own regions and are willing to take on this responsibility. They seek dialogue with producers and want to promote healthful, savoury and fair alternatives to destructive, industrial agriculture and animal husbandry. Some consumers, such as Slow Food, aim to act as co-producers of good, clean and fair food and actively participate in local and regional farming, not least in order to regain access to a level of quality and delicacy they no longer find in supermarkets.

Agricultural development plays a decisive role in combating world hunger and poverty, most of which appears in rural areas. This is primarily a question of whether agricultural production and food processing afford people living in rural areas access to food and knowledge or whether they are considered bothersome elements to be displaced by thoroughly streamlined, industrial production. However, their labour is no longer needed in the unsustainable mega-cities of the world and their slums.

Land, which is worked according to the principles of organic farming, makes up the most significant “GMO-free zones.” This movement embodies perhaps the most important revolution concerning the ecological foundation of agriculture and its continued further development. State-monitored and global standards for labelling and distribution of organic products capture but a fraction of actual foods produced according to organic principles and do not yet capture important eco-agricultural enrichments, improvements and innovations.

Growing numbers of farmers and gardeners are directing their networks against the patenting and privatisation of seed in the hands of a few multinational corporations. These networks aim to preserve one of mankind’s oldest cultural assets for the common good and future generations. This is not only a matter of the seed itself, but also of the knowledge and culture contained within the seed. In this sense, seed preservationists and breeders are part of a much more far-reaching movement for the free exchange of and access to knowledge and experience in all areas, for example as in the development and distribution of software.

Women perform most farming work in the world. Traditionally, women have the most knowledge concerning preservation of seed and the diverse nutritional and medicinal uses of plants. However, their access to means of production (land, property, technology, knowledge) is often cut off in traditional as well as industrial farming. Overcoming this fundamental injustice is the goal of women's movements and networks around the world and promises at the same time to unleash what could be the greatest potential for innovation in fighting poverty and improving food production and rural development.

Global data on agricultural production (of which less and less is used for food) suppress or underestimate the amount of food produced for immediate consumption in families and communities. Subsistence farming, especially of local and neglected varieties, continues to play a significant role in food production. It not only exists in so-called developing countries, but rather takes place everywhere in the world, particularly in crisis situations. Because it stands in the way of global trade and industrial farming, subsistence farming is depicted as backward. Some of these efforts should be celebrated as Gardens of the Future, preserving important options, traditions, and knowledge, providing the most ecologically-efficient self-provision at low energy and high labour input and holding an enormous potential for innovation.

At the same time, private gardening plays an increasing role in industrialised countries in the preservation of varieties that have disappeared from the market. Freshness and taste and recreational reclaiming of direct relations to the food we enjoy are strong motivations for this type of luxury subsistence gardening.

During the last decade, strong criticism of the mechanisms and consequences of the globalisation of trade and production has developed, including a critical and confrontational scrutiny of the World Trade Organisation WTO and the elitist club of G8 governments. Out of this dissatisfaction emerges a new global movement in search of a fair and sustainable world order beyond corporate and military control. Also, practical alternatives such as the fair trade movement, providing development opportunities through more direct and just relations between consumers and producers represent a common desire to alter the pace of globalisation.

"Food Sovereignty" has become a dazzlingly diverse common reference for these and other social movements throughout the world in which small farmers and their organisations play a pivotal role.

Diversity and Complexity

The common thread running through all of these initiatives is that in their struggle to overcome the daunting challenges facing humankind in the future (i.e. hunger and poverty, environmental degradation, climate change, destructive trends in food production and the structure of agriculture) is, that these movements have turned to the only proven principle of adaptation to changing circumstances that natural history has provided us: diversity.

Diversity constitutes complexity, not only in ecosystems, but also in social relationships. It is a cultural, economic and scientific challenge for us to better understand this complexity and handle it with the necessary stewardship and appropriate respect - to conform to its reality and use it for the common good.

In effect, we are talking about the diversity

of flora and fauna which we directly and indirectly exploit in agriculture and food production;

of regional and cultural traditions in food and agricultural practices;

of knowledge and its conduits; and

in the innovation and development of sustainable solutions.

Diversity and complexity based concepts may jar with the simplest, most effective market solutions. The simplification of challenges by reducing them to a few dominant aspects, for example the maximum profit, the quickest effect, the maximum yield increase or the largest possible distribution of a single product on the global market, usually leads to the maximization of resulting problems. What at first blush appears as the "silver bullet" frequently proves to only complicate and actually increase the problem. Complications arising from large hierarchical systems are not the same as but actually the opposite of the complexity of non-hierarchical systems. They much resemble the difference between command and participation, between control and feedback-loops.

This is equally relevant for many scientific approaches and technologies as well as political and economical concepts of agriculture and food production in development assistance and in environmental protection. Fads such as genetic engineering, the irrational belief in the blessings of agro-fuels and energy plants, neo liberal recipes for the recovery of economies and world trade, monocultures which serve the short-term optimisation of crop yields, or gigantic water projects and other forms of infrastructural megalomania seem to all be plagued by the same malady: over simplification and ignorance regarding the actual complexity of ecological, economic, regional and cultural networks and their dependencies.

Diversity is Beautiful !

The commitment to diversity and complexity of local and regional networks on the one hand and the global context on the other – the much touted “think global, act local” – is not only an antipode to multinational corporations and the geo-political, military power play of individual states. Diversity is also a revolution in how we perceive problems and how we search for possible solutions within each of our own minds. It calls into question human standards and limitations on power according to the valuation of each and every individual and every life form. It is the belief that the preservation of diversity is the best insurance against human ignorance and arrogance but also the best way to secure the greatest possible variety of options for ourselves and future generations.

sábado, marzo 29, 2008

Organic is impressively productive

NOTE FROM GM WATCH: Organic alfalfa and wheat, and to a lesser extent corn and soybeans, can be as productive as conventional counterparts, according to a new University of Wisconsin-Madison study published in the Agronomy Journal. The researchers compared results on Wisconsin farms over 8-13 years, and said their results should apply to prairie right across the upper Midwest of the US.

— Can organic cropping systems be as productive as conventional systems [ie conventional industrial agricultural systems]? The answer is an unqualified, 'Yes' for alfalfa or wheat and a qualified 'Yes most of the time' for corn and soybeans according to research reported by scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and agricultural consulting firm AGSTAT in the March-April 2008 issue of Agronomy Journal.

The researchers primarily based their answer on results from the Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trials, conducted for 13 years (1990-2002) at Arlington, WI and 8 years (1990-1997) at Elkhorn, WI. These trials compared six cropping systems (three cash grain and three forage based crops) ranging from diverse, organic systems to less diverse, conventional systems.

The cash grain systems were:conventional continuous corn, conventional corn-soybean, and organic corn-soybean-wheat where the wheat included a leguminous cover crop.

The three forage based systems were:conventional corn-alfalfa-alfalfa-alfalfa, organic corn-oats-alfalfa-alfalfa, and rotationally grazed pasture.

In this research they found that: organic forage crops yielded as much or more dry matter as their conventional counterparts with quality sufficient to produce as much milk as the conventional systems; and organic grain crops: corn, soybean, and winter wheat produced 90% as well as their conventionally managed counterparts.

In spite of some climatic differences and a large difference in soil drainage between the two sites, the relatively small difference in the way the cropping systems performed suggested that these results are widely applicable across prairie-derived soils in the U.S. upper Midwest. The researchers also compared their results to other data analysis done on this topic in the U.S. Midwest.

Although researchers found that diverse, low-input/organic cropping systems were as productive as conventional systems most of the time, there is a need for further research, according to the study’s author Dr. Joshua L. Posner, University of Wisconsin.

'There continues to be improvements in weed control for organic systems that may close the gap in productivity of corn and soybeans in wet seasons,' Posner says. 'On the other hand, technological advances may accelerate productivity gains in conventional systems that would outstrip the gains in organic systems even in favorable years.'

The true question of whether organic cropping systems are as productive as conventional systems is a dynamic question and one that requires continual reevaluation.

Ten reasons

NOTE FROM GM WATCH: The following articles come from the SPECIAL REPORT: 'The death of food as we know it' in the current issue of The Ecologist magazine.

The premise of 'The death of food...' is that an entire culture of cheap mass-produced food is about to be brought to a grinding halt. Various contributors, including Vandana Shiva, Joanna Blythman and Tim Lang, explore what will take its place. More information at http://www.theecologist.org/current.asp

Although the information in some of the articles is heavily orientated towards readers in the UK, there's still lots of detailed information of general relevance. For instance, in the section on greenhouse gas emissions from organic agriculture, the authors note how easily methane from cows can be dramatically cut simply by changing the pasturage on which they graze. This is of particular note given the various attempts to genetically engineer plants, or even genetically engineer cows, as a means of tackling this problem.

Washington, D.C.-The renewable energy industry is stepping up its meteoric rise into the mainstream of the energy sector, according to the REN21 Renewables 2007 Global Status Report. Renewable energy production capacities are growing rapidly as a result of more countries enacting far-reaching policies.

"So much has happened in the renewable energy sector during the past five years that the perceptions of some politicians and energy-sector analysts lag far behind the reality of where the renewables industry is today," says Mohamed El-Ashry, Chair of REN21.

Renowned researcher Dr. Eric Martinot led an international team of 140 researchers and contributors from both developed and developing countries to produce the report. He says renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, and small-scale hydropower offer countries the means to improve their energy security and spur economic development.

Citing the report, Martinot says the renewable energy sector now accounts for 2.4 million jobs globally, and has doubled electric generating capacity since 2004, to 240 gigawatts. More than 65 countries now have national goals for accelerating the use of renewable energy and are enacting far-reaching policies to meet those goals. Multilateral agencies and private investors alike are integrating renewable energy into their mainstream portfolios, capturing the interest of the largest global companies.

Worldwatch President Chris Flavin says the report shows that renewable energy is poised to make a significant contribution to meeting energy needs and reducing the growth in carbon dioxide emissions in the years immediately ahead. "The science is telling us we need to substantially reduce emissions now, but this will only happen with even stronger policies to accelerate the growth of clean energy," he says.

El-Ashry emphasizes that many of the trends described in the Renewables 2007 Global Status Report are the result of leadership and actions launched since the major renewable energy conference held in Bonn, Germany, in 2004. "This leadership has never been more important, as renewable energy has now reached the top of the international policy agenda under the United Nations and the G8," said El-Ashry.

Commenting on the dramatic rise of renewables, Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), said: "The findings come in the wake of UNEP's annual gathering of environment ministers in Monaco last week. It is clear from ministers in Monaco and from reports like REN21 that we are beginning to see elements of an emerging Green Economy, fueled by the existing climate change agreements and the prospect of even deeper and more decisive emissions reductions post 2012."

The Renewables 2007 Global Status Report is being released ahead of the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference (WIREC), taking place March 4-6 in Washington, D.C. WIREC will be the third such international conference following those in Bonn in 2004 and Beijing in 2005.

About REN21: REN21 is a global policy network including members from governments and international organizations, civil society, and industry from the energy, environment, and development sectors. REN21's goal is to bolster policy development for the rapid expansion of renewable energy in developing and industrialised economies. German development enterprise GTZ and the United Nations Environment Programme are partners in the network's secretariat. For more information, visit www.ren21.net.

About Worldwatch: The Worldwatch Institute is an independent research organization based in Washington, D.C. that works on energy, resource, and environmental issues. The Institute's State of the World report is published annually in more than 20 languages. For more information, visit www.worldwatch.org.

REN21 Renewables 2007 Global Status Report: Highlights

* Renewable electricity generation capacity reached an estimated 240 gigawatts (GW) worldwide in 2007, an increase of 50 percent over 2004. Renewable energy represents 5 percent of global power capacity and 3.4 percent of global power generation. New renewable energy (not counting large hydropower) generated as much electric power worldwide in 2006 as one-quarter of the world's nuclear power plants. Large hydropower itself accounted for 15 percent of global power generation.

* The largest component of the renewable power capacity increase was wind power, which grew again by over 25 percent worldwide in 2007, to reach an estimated 95 GW.

* The fastest growing energy technology in the world is grid-connected solar photovoltaics (PV), with 50 percent annual increases in cumulative installed capacity in both 2006 and 2007, to an estimated 7.7 GW. This translates into 1.5 million homes with rooftop solar PV feeding into the grid worldwide. Another estimated 2.7 GW of stand-alone systems brings global PV capacity to over 10 GW.

* Biomass and geothermal energy are commonly used for both power and heating, with recent increases in a number of countries, including uses for district heating. More than 2 million ground-source heat pumps are used in 30 countries for heating and cooling of buildings.

* Production of biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) exceeded an estimated 53 billion liters in 2007, up 43 percent from 2005. Ethanol production in 2007 represented about four percent of the 1,300 billion liters of gasoline consumed globally. Annual biodiesel production increased by more than 50 percent in 2006.

* Renewable energy, especially small hydropower, biomass, and solar PV, provides electricity, heat, motive power, and water pumping for tens of millions of people in rural areas of developing countries, serving agriculture, small industry, homes, schools, and community needs. Twenty-five million households cook and light their homes with biogas, and 2.5 million households use solar lighting systems.

* Developing countries as a group have more than 40 percent of existing renewable power capacity, more than 70 percent of existing solar hot water capacity, and 45 percent of biofuel production.

* Investment reached an estimated $71 billion in new renewable power, fuel, and heat production assets worldwide in 2007 (excluding large hydropower), of which 47 percent was for wind power and 30 percent was for solar PV. Investment in large hydropower represented an additional $15-20 billion.

* Investment flows became more diversified and mainstreamed during 2006/2007, including those from major commercial and investment banks, venture capital and private equity investors, multilateral and bilateral development organizations, and smaller local financiers. The renewable energy industry saw many new companies, huge increases in company valuations, and many initial public offerings. Just counting the 140 highest-valued publicly traded renewable energy companies yields a combined market capitalization of more than $100 billion. Companies also broadened expansion into emerging markets. Major industry growth is occurring in a number of emerging commercial technologies, including thin-film solar PV, concentrating solar thermal power generation, and advanced/second generation biofuels (with first-ever commercial plants completed in 2007 or under construction).

* Jobs worldwide from renewable energy manufacturing, operations, and maintenance exceeded 2.4 million in 2006, including some 1.1 million for biofuels production.

* Policy targets for renewable energy exist in at least 66 countries worldwide, including all 27 European Union countries, 29 U.S. states (and D.C.), and 9 Canadian provinces. Most targets are for shares of electricity production, primary energy, and/or final energy by a future year. Most targets aim for the 2010-2012 timeframe, although an increasing number of targets aim for 2020.

* There is now an EU-wide target of 20 percent of final energy by 2020, and a Chinese target of 15 percent of primary energy by 2020. In addition to China, several other developing countries adopted or upgraded targets during 2006/2007.

* In addition, targets for biofuels as future shares of transport energy now exist in several countries, including an EU-wide target of 10 percent by 2020.

* Policies to promote renewable energy have mushroomed in recent years. At least 60 countries-37 developed and transition countries and 23 developing countries-have some type of policy to promote renewable power generation. The most common policy is the feed-in law. By 2007, at least 37 countries and 9 states/provinces had adopted feed-in policies, more than half of which have been enacted since 2002.

* Strong momentum for feed-in tariffs continues around the world as countries enact new feed-in policies or revise existing ones. At least 44 states, provinces, and countries have enacted renewable portfolio standards (RPS), also called renewable obligations or quota policies. There are many other forms of policy support for renewable power generation, including capital investment subsidies or rebates, tax incentives and credits, sales tax and value-added tax exemptions, energy production payments or tax credits, net metering, public investment or financing, and public competitive bidding.

viernes, marzo 28, 2008

Thursday,March 26,2008

Contact: Darcey Rakestraw

(+1 202) 452.1992 x517

drakestraw@worldwatch.org

Oil’s Fuzzy Math: Prices Skyrocket Despite Modest Growth in Demand

Washington, D.C.—Oil prices have skyrocketed despite the fact that world oil demand grew just 1 percent in 2007, according to the latestVital Sign Update from the Worldwatch Institute. Contrary to published reports, the new era of $100-plus oil is not caused by soaring demand for the energy source, but by inadequate global supply.

Oil prices nearly doubled during 2007, from just above $50 a barrel in January to nearly $100 at year’s end. Meanwhile, world crude oil production actually fell from 73.8 million barrels per day in 2005 to 73.2 million barrels per day in the first 10 months of 2007.

“It’s too early to say definitively that oil production has reached its all-time peak,” said Worldwatch Institute President Christopher Flavin. “But it’s clear that the world is having a hard time expanding production to meet even a modest growth in demand.”

The United States remained the world’s largest oil-consuming nation in 2007, using almost one-fourth of the global total at a rate of 20.7 million barrels daily. But rising oil prices discouraged greater demand and left U.S. oil consumption virtually unchanged for the third year in a row. OECD-Europe and Japan consumed 15.4 million barrels and 5 million barrels a day respectively.

Chinese oil consumption increased 5.5 percent in 2007 to 7.7 million barrels per day—accounting for half the growth in global demand for the year. China’s oil use has nearly doubled in the past decade and now accounts for nearly 9 percent of the world total.

Geological and political factors led to a decline in production in some of the world’s largest oil-producing countries in 2007, including Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria, Norway, the United Kingdom, and Venezuela. Falling production in Saudi Arabia allowed Russia to become the largest producer, despite slowing production growth.

Crude oil production also increased in several countries, including Angola, Brazil, and Canada (the latter mainly through tar-sands mining). War-torn Iraq raised oil production to its highest level since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, but production remains below prewar levels.

In March 2008, world oil prices hit $110 per barrel, breaking the inflation-adjusted record set in April 1980. Record prices led to record profits for many oil companies in 2007, including Chevron and Royal Dutch Shell PLC. ExxonMobil Corporation reported a net income of $40.6 billion, the single largest annual profit in U.S. corporate history.

“While oil companies are enjoying record profits and increasing their investment in oil exploration, they are struggling to replace their reserves,” said Flavin. “It would be wise for them to invest more of their profits in new energy sources such as solar and geothermal energy—before their oil reserves are further depleted.”

Worldwatch E-mail list: If you would like to receive Worldwatch press advisories regularly or wish to be removed from this mailing list, please send your request to Darcey Rakestraw at drakestraw@worldwatch.org or call (+1) 202.452.1992 x517.

About the Worldwatch Institute: The Worldwatch Institute is an independent research organization based in Washington, D.C. Through accessible, fact-based analysis of critical global issues, Worldwatch helps to inform people around the world about the complex interactions among people, nature, and economies. For more information, visit www.worldwatch.org.

Washington, D.C.-Yet another renewable energy technology-concentrating solar power (CSP)-may be ready for the explosive growth that has marked solar photovoltaic and wind power systems in recent years.

CSP, a utility-scale technology ideally suited to desert areas, is resurging around the world, with major facilities being built or planned in the U.S. Southwest, Spain, North Africa, Peru, Chile, and even Germany, write Susan Moran and J. Thomas McKinnon in the March/April issue of World Watch magazine. In the United States, a "perfect storm" of influences-especially growing public concern about coal, new venture capital, high oil prices, and state renewable energy mandates-is positioning CSP to become a much bigger part of the energy mix.

CSP delivers power in the middle of the day, when demand is typically highest. And CSP facilities can be equipped with thermal storage capacity that enables them to supply "off-peak" power long after the sun has gone down. Costs are currently around 17 cents per kilowatthour (kWh), but Moran and McKinnon cite one set of projections suggesting that cost could drop to 8 cents/kWh with experience. Department of Energy research grants have been awarded to nine U.S. companies in an effort to bring costs down to 7 cents/kWh by 2020.

Although Congress failed to extend a solar investment tax credit earlier this year, many U.S. states are more sympathetic. In California, for instance, several utilities have signed power purchase agreements with builders of CSP facilities.

ALSO IN THE MARCH/APRIL ISSUE:

Special Place or Special Zone? The Future of Aqaba, by Yaakov Garb In 2000, the Jordanian government declared the city of Aqaba a "Special Economic Zone"-a preferred tax- and duty-free site designed explicitly to attract investment and international business. This distinction has transformed Aqaba from a small town to one of the most talked-about development sites in the Middle East, for better or for worse.

India's Janadesh 2007: A Long March toward Justice, by Skye Hohmann Last October, 25,000 of India's poorest farmers walked 340 kilometers in searing heat to demand that the government fulfill land-rights promises made decades ago.

Vital Signs: Coal Use Rises Dramatically Despite Impacts on Climate and Health, by James Russell

jueves, marzo 27, 2008

http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/

Biofuelwatch campaigns against the use of bioenergy from unsustainable sources, i.e. biofuels linked to accelerated climate change, deforestation, bio-diversity losses, human rights abuses, including the impoverishment and dispossession of local populations, water and soil degradation, loss of food sovereignty and food security.

Replacing even a fraction of fossil fuels with biofuels requires vast areas of land - with governments planning to convert tens of millions of hectares to agrofuel monocultures. Land conversion on this scale requires taking over land on which communities depend for growing food and/or for grazing - often classed as 'wasteland' - or the destruction of important ecosystems, including rainforests (which are also home to hundreds of millions of people). Land grabs for agrofuels are happening across Asia, Latin America and Africa, and often involve violence. Some 150,000 families in Argentina and 90,000 families in Paraguay have already been displaced by soya. The accelerating rate of soya expansion due to the agrofuel boom is associated with increasing frequency of evictions. In Tanzania, the UK-based Sun Biofuel Plc are having over 11,000 villagers evicted for jatrtopha biodiesel. In Indonesia, the Chair of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues has warned that millions of indigenous peoples will soon become biofuel refugees.

lunes, marzo 24, 2008

There have been few experiments as reckless, overhyped and with as little potential upside as the rapid rollout of genetically modified crops.

Last month, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), a pro-biotech nonprofit, released a report highlighting the proliferation of genetically modified crops. According to ISAAA, biotech crop area grew 12 percent, or 12.3 million hectares, to reach 114.3 million hectares in 2007, the second highest area increase in the past five years.

For the biotech backers, this is cause to celebrate. They claim that biotech helps farmers. They say it promises to reduce hunger and poverty in developing countries. "If we are to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of cutting hunger and poverty in half by 2015," says Clive James, ISAAA founder and the author the just-released report, "biotech crops must play an even bigger role in the next decade.”

In fact, existing genetically modified crops are hurting small farmers and failing to deliver increased food supply -- and posing enormous, largely unknown risks to people and the planet.

For all of the industry hype around biotech products, virtually all planted genetically modified seed is for only four products -- soy, corn, cotton and canola -- with just two engineered traits. Most of the crops are engineered to be resistant to glyphosate, an herbicide sold by Monsanto under the brand-name Round-up (these biotech seeds are known as RoundUp-Ready). Others are engineered to include a naturally occurring pesticide, Bt.

Most of the genetically modified crops in developing countries are soy, says Bill Freese, science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety and co-author of "Who Benefits from GM Crops," a report issued at the same time as ISAAA's release. These crops are exported to rich countries, primarily as animal feed. They do absolutely nothing to supply food to the hungry.

As used in developing countries, biotech crops are shifting power away from small, poor farmers desperately trying to eke out livelihoods and maintain their land tenure.

Glyphosate-resistance is supposed to enable earlier and less frequent spraying, but, concludes "Who Benefits from GM Crops," these biotech seeds "allow farmers to spray a particular herbicide more frequently and indiscriminately without fear of damaging the crop." This requires expenditures beyond the means of small farmers -- but reduces labor costs, a major benefit for industrial farms.

ISAAA contends that Bt planting in India and China has substantially reduced insecticide spraying, which it advances as the primary benefit of biotech crops.

Bt crops may offer initial reductions in required spraying, says Freese, but Bt is only effective against some pests, meaning farmers may have to use pesticides to prevent other insects from eating their crops. Focusing on a district in Punjab, "Who Benefits from GM Crops" shows how secondary pest problems have offset whatever gains Bt crops might offer.

Freese also notes that evidence is starting to come in to support longstanding fears that genetically engineering the Bt trait into crops would give rise to Bt-resistant pests.

The biotech seeds are themselves expensive, and must be purchased anew every year. Industry leader Monsanto is infamous for suing farmers for the age-old practice of saving seeds, and holds that it is illegal for farmers even to save genetically engineered seeds that have blown onto their fields from neighboring farms. "That has nothing to do with feeding the hungry," or helping the poorest of the poor, says Hope Shand, research director for the ETC Group, an ardent biotech opponent. It is, to say the least, not exactly a farmer-friendly approach.

Although the industry and its allies tout the benefits that biotech may yield someday for the poor, "we have yet to see genetically modified food that is cheaper, more nutritious or tastes better," says Shand. "Biotech seeds have not been shown to be scientifically or socially useful," although they have been useful for the profit-driven interests of Monsanto, she says.

Freese notes that the industry has been promising gains for the poor for a decade and a half -- but hasn't delivered. Products in the pipeline won't change that, he says, with the industry focused on introducing new herbicide resistant seeds.

The evidence on yields for the biotech crops is ambiguous, but there is good reason to believe yields have actually dropped. ISAAA's Clive James says that Bt crops in India and China have improved yields somewhat. "Who Benefits from GM Crops" carefully reviews this claim, and offers a convincing rebuttal. The report emphasizes the multiple factors that affect yield, and notes that Bt and Roundup-Ready seeds alike are not engineered to improve yield per se, just to protect against certain predators or for resistance to herbicide spraying.

Beyond the social disaster of contributing to land concentration and displacement of small farmers, a range of serious ecological and sustainability problems with biotech crops is already emerging -- even though the biotech crop experiment remains quite new.

Strong evidence of pesticide resistance is rapidly accumulating, details "Who Benefits from GM Crops," meaning that farmers will have to spray more and more chemicals to less and less effect. Pesticide use is rising rapidly in biotech-heavy countries. In the heaviest user of biotech seeds -- the United States, which has half of all biotech seed planting -- glyphosate-resistant weeds are proliferating. Glyphosate use in the United States rose by 15 times from 1994 to 2005, according to "Who Benefits from GM Crops," and use of other and more toxic herbicides is rapidly rising. The U.S. experience likely foreshadows what is to come for other countries more recently adopting biotech crops.

Seed diversity is dropping, as Monsanto and its allies aim to eliminate seed saving, and development of new crop varieties is slowing. Contamination from neighboring fields using genetically modified seeds can destroy farmers' ability to maintain biotech-free crops. Reliance on a narrow range of seed varieties makes the food system very vulnerable, especially because of the visible problems with the biotech seeds now in such widespread use.

For all the uncertainties about the long-term effects of biotech crops and food, one might imagine that there were huge, identifiable short-term benefits. But one would be wrong.

Instead, a narrowly based industry has managed to impose a risky technology with short-term negatives and potentially dramatic downsides.

But while it is true, as ISAAA happily reports, that biotech planting is rapidly growing, it remains heavily concentrated in just a few countries: the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India and China.

Europe and most of the developing world continue to resist Monsanto's seed imperialism. The industry and its allies decry this stand as a senseless response to fear-mongering. It actually reflects a rational assessment of demonstrated costs and benefits -- and an appreciation for real but incalculable risks of toying with the very nature of nature.